BAIL

FIR- U/S- 376, 506, 323 IPC

In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge,
East Delhi Bail Application No. _______ / 2017
In The Matter Of:-
Mr. …….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State …… Respondent
FIR No: ………..(Dated:-----------) PS:
New Nagar US: ,,,,,,,,,OF IPC District-East Delhi
INDEX
Srl. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Application for Bail, U/S-439 of Cr.P.C. 01-
08
2. Annexure -P-1 Copy of the FIR 09-11
3.. Annexure -P-2 Copy of the Photographs 12-37
4.. Annexure -P-3 Copy of a undertaking procured by the Complainant
from the Petitioner that he will get their alleged marriage registered in the
Court. She also alleges in the same undertaking that her third child is
fathered by the Petitioner. 38
5. Annexure -P-4 Copy of a Fee-Receipt, dated-25.08.2014, showing the
address of the sister of the Complainant, named, Soni Kumari, to be the flat
of the Petitioner where the Complainant would live. 39
6. Annexure -P-5 Copy of the Statement of the Account of the bank of the
Petitioner 40-54
7. Vakalatnama

PETITIONER [In Judicial Custody]

THROUGH
, ADVOCATE,
(Enrolment No.-D/55/1995) (COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
LAWYERS’ CHAMBERS, ………………..
In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge, East Delhi Bail Application No.
_______ /2017
In The Matter Of:-
Mr.
R/o …...Petitioner
VERSUS
The State Through) …… Respondent
FIR No: 0493 of 2017 (Dated: 28/08/2017) PS: New Ashok Nagar US:
376/506/323 OF IPC District-East Delhi Petition Under Section 439 Of The
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
For Grant Of Bail MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:-
1. That the Petitioner is a law abiding Citizen. He however, has been falsely
implicated by the Police by lodging against him completely vexatious, false,
frivolous and baseless FIR. The Copy of the FIR is annexed herewith this
Petition as an Annexure-P-1.
2. That the Petitioner was arrested by the Police on 28.08.2017. He had
fully cooperated in the investigations and consequently the Police did not
seek his Police Custody (PC), and consequently, he was sent to the judicial
custody (JC) on 29.08.2017. He is, therefore, behind the bars for nearly 14
days.
3. The Petitioner and the Complainant are both married persons. The
Complainant got married in 2008. Both are merely 10th class/ 12th class
pass. Both are known to each other for quite a long time, i.e. long before
2008, as they were neighbors in …..Village, Delhi prior to the marriage of
the Complainant. After marriage, the Complainant shifted to Kolkata and
the Petitioner began to live in ….Delhi-96. The family of the Complainant
had already shifted to Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, UP, which is hardly about
2 Km. from the residence/office of the Petitioner, the alleged place of
occurrence.
4. That in the year, 2010, the Complainant got back to Delhi and began to
live in in a rented, ……….., Delhi-96. The husband of the Complaint began
to work with the Petitioner. The office/flat of the Petitioner was/is also in the
same colony at …………..Delhi-96.
5. That in the year, …… the Petitioner housed the Complainant in one of
the floor of his office/flat at ………….Flats, ………. Delhi-96.
6. That the allegations in the FIR are as follows: Allegations in the FIR:
7. That the Petitioner had made a film/video of the Complainant while she
was taking bath in the bathroom of his office/flat and subsequently made
physical relationship with her by threatening her that either she should
obey, or else he would make her bathing video viral. The Petitioner also
threatened the Complainant not to tell about her relationship with him to
anyone or else he would defame her by revealing to all that she had a
boyfriend before her marriage.
8. That the Petitioner would make physical relations with her repeatedly on
the same pretext that he would be defaming her by revealing to all that she
had a boyfriend. While being intimate, the Petitioner made Several other
videos and threatened to destroy her if she ever told about the same to
anyone. When she opposed the Petitioner, he had several times beaten
her and her children and tried to set her house on fire.
9. That the Petitioner had married the Complainant in a closed room and
had made a video of the marriage too.
10. That the Petitioner had a bad eye on the sister of the Complainant.
11. That the Petitioner and the Complainant had physical relationship
between the period 2012 to 2017. On getting fed-up, the Complainant ran
away from the flat of the Petitioner on 26.02.2017. Submissions Vis-a-Vis
The Allegations Leveled In The FIR:
12. That on the alleged threat of making bathing video viral the Petitioner
would like to state that the Petitioner has not made any such video nor has
he ever had any camera in his bathroom to do that. This averment of the
Petitioner gets strengthened from the fact that the Complainant has not
specified the day, or date, or time when she took the alleged bath in the
bathroom of the Petitioner. She also fails to specify as to when she first
time became physically intimate with the Petitioner. It is submitted that
Complainant and the Petitioner came in contact with each other quite
naturally, they being family friends and known to each other for a very long
time. No one compelled, or induced or pressurized anyone. Even
otherwise, it was an utterly insufficient/superficial reasoning, which the
Complainant has allegedly given to get physically intimate with the
Petitioner. It is beyond comprehension as to how a bathing video could
bring shame to her and her family, as also what stopped her from
complaining to the Police if it was so. It happens almost every other day
that the females get such miscreants sent behind the bars for secretly
video-graphing/photographing them. Not even a rustic and totally
uneducated female would get physically intimate owing to the alleged
threat.
13. That as for several other videos, the Petitioner would like to state that
the same were not made at the instance of the Petitioner. On the contrary,
it was the Complainant who had an acute habit of getting herself
filmed/video-graphed/photographed while being nude. It would be relevant
to mention herein that the Complainant was so much fond of her nudity that
she would send the Petitioner her nude videos on his phone/whatsApp etc.
not on one occasion or two, but on numerous occasions. Her allegations
about a singular instance of video-graphing her in the bathroom and then
she getting blackmailed by the Petitioner holds no ground, the same being
false, baseless and concocted. The Petitioner is filing along with this
application numerous photographs fully substantiating the averments of the
Petitioner. The said Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings are self-
explanatory and speak volumes about the comfort and coziness which the
two enjoyed. The said photographs are annexed herewith this Petition as
Annexure P-2 (Colly.) The Petitioner has also handed over to the Police
one pen-drive containing numerous Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings,
Phone Calls, etc. involving the Complainant and the Petitioner. He has also
given a copy of the said pen-drive to his Counsel. The contents of the said
pendrive can be ascertained from the Police. The Counsel of the Petitioner
also has instructions to place the copy of the said pen-drive on the record
of this Hon’ble Court subject to the permission of this Hon’ble Court.
14. That on the allegation of the alleged marriage, it is stated that it was the
Complainant who had forced the Petitioner to marry at Kalkaji Temple, New
Delhi, as also took an undertaking from him that he will get the alleged
marriage registered. It was she who had got a photo of the alleged
marriage made at the a photo studio at Kalkaji Temple only. She also
procured an undertaking from the Petitioner that he will get the alleged
marriage registered in the Court. She procured the said undertaking from
the petitioner by blackmailing him that her third child was fathered by him
and not by her husband, saying in her won words,
“HAM DONON KE BEECH MAIN EK BETA PAIDA HUA, (JO) HAMARE
PYAR KI NISHANI HAI.”. At the time of marriage, the Petitioner had
bought for the Complainant a gold Maang-Tika and a diamond nose pin.
The said undertaking is annexed herewith this Petition as Annexure P-3.
15. That as for her allegation that Petitioner had a bad eye on her sister
too, the Petitioner would state that this allegation is concocted, false, and
baseless, and the same is leveled belatedly as a result of an afterthought,
with malafide intentions and ulterior motives, just to falsely implicate the
Petitioner one way or the other. The sister of the Complainant, named, Ms.
Soni Kumar, was continuously/ permanently living with her for the last
about two and a half (2&½) years. While living with the Complainant, her
sister was studying in the School Of Open Learning and therefore would
stay in home almost the whole day, as she had nowhere to go. Her sister
was there with her even when Complainant had left the flat of the Petitioner
on 26.02.2017. It is totally incomprehensible that the Complainant was
facing the kind of situation she has alleged in the FIR and she chose not to
complain about that to her sister who was living with her 24x7 for such a
long period, nor did she tell anything to her husband. She also chose not to
tell anything to her mother or other family members who lived at a stone’s
throw distance (Hardly 2 Km from her). Further, she also did not tell
anything to her neighbor living in the other floors of the same building/Flat
at 32M, Pocket-2, EHS, MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi-96. This
allegation further establishes as to how desperate the Complainant is to
falsely implicate the Petitioner in the name of her sister too. The copy of a
Fee-Receipt of the School Of Open Learning, dated-25.08.2014, containing
the address of the office/flat of the Petitioner is filed along with this Petition
as an Annexure -P-4. Other Pleas And Submissions:
16. That the Complainant would compel the Petitioner to spend a huge
money on her, her husband, her family and her other relatives. The
Petitioner would purchase for her garments, jewelerry and other household
items, like Mobile Sets, Washing Machine and Fridge, etc. She has so far
taken from the Petitioner a jewellery worth Approx. Rs.1,25,000/- (Three
Gold Chains, One diamond Nose-Pin, Two gold Rings). He paid her mobile
bills, as also the school fees of her children, namely Master Jatin and Baby
Nidhi Singh, studying in East Point School and Vanasthali Public School
respectively, for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-16, by way of Cash and
Cheque. A fraction of what the Petitioner had spent on the Complainant
does reflect in the following table, which tells volumes about how much the
Petitioner was spending on the Complainant, and her family members:
Date Amount Where the Amount Was Spent 08.04.2015 Rs.1,50,000/-
Shailesh Singh (The husband of the Complainant) 30.05.2015 Rs.19,732/-
Pankaj Electronics, towards the purchase of Washing Machine for the
Complainant. 17.06.2015 Rs.2,00,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of
the Complainant) 20.07.2015 Rs.5,000/- Sachin Kumar (The son of
maternal uncle of the Complainant) 21.07.2015 Rs.2,500/- Sandeep Kumar
Singh (The brother of the husband of the Complainant) 29.07.2015
Rs.30,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the Complainant) 10.08.2015
Rs.5,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of the husband of the
Complainant) 27.08.2015 Rs.75,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the
Complainant) 05.09.2015 Rs.5,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother of
the husband of the Complainant) 10.09.2015 Rs.10,000/- Neetu Singh (The
Complainant) 08.10.2015 Rs.25,000/- Shailesh Singh (The husband of the
Complainant) 20.11.2015 Rs.10,000/- Sandeep Kumar Singh (The brother
of the husband of the Complainant) 30.12.2015 Rs.1,00,000/- Shailesh
Singh (The husband of the Complainant) 14.03.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
Shailesh Singh (The husband of the Complainant) This table clearly
demonstrates that the Petitioner was spending on the Complainant and her
family members a whooping sum running in lacs of rupees. The pattern of
outflux of money from the accounts of the Petitioner in a span of merely 12
months leaves a lot of scope for speculations as to how much he should
have spent on her during his relationship with the Complainant between the
period 2012 to 2017. The Petitioner is filing the related bank statement of
account of the Petitioner along with this Petition as Annexure P-5 (Colly.).
17. That the Complainant has portrayed herself to be a victim and to the
Petitioner, a tormentor. The material which he has handed over to the
Police contains a video which clearly demonstrates that the things between
the two were just opposite of what she has alleged. The Complainant not
only fully dominated the Petitioner, but she would also beat him. The
Complainant is clearly seen in that video slapping, shoving and rebuking
the Petitioner in his office.
18. That in the given Case, all was good between the Complainant and the
Petitioner till the Petitioner was paying all her bills and fulfilling all her
demands- acceptable or unacceptable. She however, walked in the Police
Station and got a false FIR- U/S- 376, 506, 323 IPC registered, the minute
the Petitioner failed to toe the line set by her. That as averred in the
preceding paras, the allegations of the Complainant are nothing but a
bundle of blatant lies, the same being totally false, baseless and concocted.
The Complainant has leveled the allegations with malafide intentions and
ulterior motives, just to falsely implicate the Petitioner.
19. That besides and without prejudice to the above, Delay in lodging the
F.I.R. is yet another strong plea in favor of the Petitioner. As per her own
allegations, the Complainant remained in the relationship with the Petitioner
between the period 2012 to 26.02.2017. She however, stayed silent during
this period despite the fact that her husband and her sister were living with
her. Her whole family and relatives also stay and reside within the radius of
2 kms from her flat. Thereafter, as per her own allegations, she walked out
of the relation by leaving the flat of the Petitioner on 26.02.2017. She offers
no explanation as to what stopped her from getting the FIR lodged for
about Six months, i.e. from 26.02.2017 to 28.08.2017. The F.I.R was
lodged on 28.08.2017. An unexplained delay of over Five years and six
months fully substantiates the version of the Petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this Case.
20. That there is nothing which got to be further investigated in this matter.
The investigation in this case is complete for all practical purposes.
21. That the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi. He has his family
residing permanently in Delhi and has deep roots in the society. There is no
question of him fleeing from justice or absconding by any stretch of the
imagination.
22. That the antecedents of the Petitioner are completely clean. He belongs
to a respectable family. Prior to this, he has no FIR in his name, let alone
any conviction in any criminal case.
23. That the Trial of the case would take a long time and keeping the
Petitioner in Judicial Custody (JC) would not serve any fruitful purpose. On
the contrary, his whole family will come on the road if his incarceration
prolongs, he being the sole bread earner of his family, comprising of three
school/college going children.
24. That the Petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence in this
case, nor to try and contact the Victims/Complaint in this case by any way
and means.
25. That the Petitioner undertakes to attend the proceedings before the
concerned Court regularly, as and when called upon to do so. 26. That the
Petitioner further undertakes to abide by all the conditions which this
Hon’ble court pleases to impose to enlarge him on bail. PRAYER It is
therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
enlarge the Petitioner on bail, subject to whatever conditions which this
Hon’ble Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this Case, and
in the interest of justice. Petitioner [In Judicial Custody] Through SUSHIL
KR. SHARMA, ADVOCATE, (Enrolment No.-D/55/1995)
In The Court Of Shri …………Judge (PC Act) CBI, East, KKD, Delhi Bail
Application No. 1602 / 2017
In The Matter Of:- Mr. …… …….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State …… Respondent
FIR No:

INDEX [List Of Additional Documents Filed On Behalf Of the Petitioner]

Srl. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The
Complainant for the period 23.11.2016 to 22.12.2016. 01-05
2. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The Complainant for the period 23.01.2017
to 22.02.2017. 06-11
3.. Call Detail Record (CDR) Of The Complainant for the period 23.02.2017
to 22.03.2017. 12-14
PETITIONER [In Judicial Custody] THROUGH
ADVOCATE, (

Indian Penal Code, 1860 CHAPTER IV : GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Section-90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.- A
consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if
the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a
misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason
to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception; or Consent of insane personif the consent is given by a
person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to
understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his
consent; or Consent of childunless the contrary appears from the context, if
the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting The Human Body Sexual Offences
375. Rape.-
A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter
excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling
under any of the six following descriptions:--
First.-Against her will.
Secondly.-Without her consent.
Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by pulling
her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.--With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her
husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is
another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.--With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by
reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him
personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome
substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of
that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly.--With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of
age. Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception.--Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not
being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
Section-376. Punishment for rape.-
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (1), commits
rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a
term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless
the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in
which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided
that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in
the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than
seven years.
(2) Whoever,--
(a) being a police officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the
police station to which he is appointed; or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in me custody of a police officer
subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and
commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the
custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other
place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force
or of a woman's or children's institution lakes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place
or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage
of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and
shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years,
Explanation
I.--Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in
furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be
deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-
section.
Explanation
2.—"Women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called
an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows'
home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the
reception and care of woman or children.
Explanation
3.--"Hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts
of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during
convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.
Of Hurt Section-323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
Chapter XXII: Of Criminal Intimidation, Insult And Annoyance Section-506.
Punishment for criminal intimidation.-
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.-- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with line, or with both